Matthew on Christ and the Law

Abstract

MATTHEW'S PRESENTATION of Jesus' relation to the asserts M. Jack Suggs, makes jugglers of all of us. 5:17-19 and 5:20-48 have been seen, for example, not only to contradict each other but also to be internally inconsistent. Joachim Jeremias claims that in 5:21-48 Jesus with his ego de lego hymin has has an unparalleled and revolutionary boldness to set himself in opposition to the Torah; 5:21-48 would thus seem to contradict 5:18. Likewise, R. G. Hamerton-Kelly claims that 5:21-48 does precisely what 5:17-19 prohibits: it declares certain parts of the law invalid. Hamerton-Kelly also claims internal inconsistency within 5:17-19. In 5:18 there are three distinct attitudes to the law: (a) a legally rigorist attitude which insists that the law of Moses continues to be observed in all its details according to the established halakah; (o) some of the law has been abrogated by Jesus; and (c) the authority of the traditional halakah has been replaced by the authority of the risen Christ. Suggs, too, sees internal inconsistency in 5:17-20 and as a result does not derive his primary positive understanding of Matthew's relation to the law from this passage. Gunther Bornkamm, among others, claims that in 5:21-48 the antitheses are inconsistent and that Matthew was not even aware of the inconsistency; the first, second, and fourth are a sharpening of the law, whereas the third, fifth, and sixth abolish it. In this paper, by contrast, it will be argued that Matthew does have a